|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2006 19:25:38 GMT
But themes are the only thing that you find substantial? For someone who places little value on words in regards to cinema, you sure do demand a lot of explanations. Anything that strikes an emotional chord with me is substantial. And more often than not, things that I find shallow such as "wonderful expository long-takes and highly accomplished tracking shots" don't strike an emotional chord with me, unless I'm enjoying the actual film.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 5, 2006 23:04:03 GMT
The 'actual film' is the camera's activity, not the story or the characters or the themes they raise. Just like novels are words and paintings are brush strokes. If you take those things away you no longer have anything.
People like stories, they always have and they always will, and the reason that cinema has taken over from the novel as the primary supplier of stories is because it takes two hours and no effort. So people may have hundreds of movies that they love, but what they really love are the stories those movies 'tell', in which case they may as well have been novels.
In fact, this can all be summed up in one of the most commonly heard criticisms: "The book was better."
The camera is the first fact of cinema.
'Shallow' you may find it, but the implication there is that cinema can never be 'deep'.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Jul 5, 2006 23:45:27 GMT
Speaking of PTA... Magnolia (1999) - Director: Paul Thomas Anderson A number of indivduals residing in the San Fernandino Valley, Los Angeles, California are brought together through a strange series coincidence... or fate.The best movie from my favorite director. For some reason, it hit a nerve this time around. More so than the previous nine viewings I've had of this excellent film. In my opinion, I feel this should have won Best Film for 1999. It's beautiful in every aspect... It's emotionally striking (especially for myself, having been able to relate to the scenes involving the old man dying of cancer), and the performances are flawless. I can't say much that I haven't said before. On a side note, this time around I noticed that the film isn't nearly as long as I had previously believed it to be... Anyone else notice that the end-credts are approximately 45 minutes long?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jul 5, 2006 23:54:03 GMT
Anyone else notice that the end-credts are approximately 45 minutes long? Seriously? It's been so long since I've seen the film, I don't even remember the final moments of the film. But 45 minutes? That makes me want to rewatch it, along with Anderson's other work, what with all the recent discussion on here.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 0:03:25 GMT
I was also considering a rewatch tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 1:06:21 GMT
'Shallow' you may find it, but the implication there is that cinema can never be 'deep'. Well, considering you're trying to manipulate me into agreeing with you by stating your opinion as fact, let me say that I do not consider cinema a purely visual medium. I view it as a combination of other art forms, including literature, theatre, photography, and music. Therefore, by stating that something such as a camera movement is shallow to me, I am simply expressing my belief that the medium is capable of much more beyond "oooh look how purdy!" I'll be watching Magnolia soon.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 1:24:01 GMT
So everything David Lynch does has emotional backing behind it? The weird wheelchair guy in Mulholland Drive is deep? The fact that the Cowboy has no eyebrows is deep? The way he superimposes the jitterbug dancers is deep? He could've just shown footage of a bunch of people dancing.
Not everything has an emotional depth to it, no matter who directs the film.
A lot of that film's memorable moments are through visuals that aren't rooted through emotion, but through simple creativity, like the bedroom scene towards the end with the smoke crawling up the walls. How about the tracking shots in Scorsese's films?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 1:39:58 GMT
So everything David Lynch does has emotional backing behind it? The weird wheelchair guy in Mulholland Drive is deep? The fact that the Cowboy has no eyebrows is deep? The way he superimposes the jitterbug dancers is deep? He could've just shown footage of a bunch of people dancing. These things in Mulholland Drive are "deep" to me because I thoroughly enjoyed watching them. Lynch creates a dreamlike atmosphere throughout the entire film, and the scenes you mentioned fit beautifully within the film. What do you mean by "emotional depth"? Any emotional depth a film has is completely up to the viewer, for it is his or her emotions that are being affected. Like Jamie Foxx said in Collateral, no one person can ever truly know what another is thinking. I don't know what Lynch is thinking, and I don't know what PTA is thinking. I can't base any film on the director's intentions, it's all about how it affects me, and I failed to make any sort of connection with Boogie Nights.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 1:57:32 GMT
So I don't get it. I enjoy the use of colors in a particular scene, so that's depth?
Some things are meant to give a film character, not illustrate depth. A tracking shot in a film may be impressive and admirable, but it doesn't have to illustrate something deep about the characters. The tracking/zoom shot in Le Samourai does so. The one in Goodfellas doesn't, but I still admire it, even if it isn't there to say anything about the characters.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 2:08:37 GMT
I enjoy the use of colors in a particular scene, so that's depth? Sure. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Jul 6, 2006 2:21:35 GMT
I get up every morning at 3:30 AM to watch NBC. They air this show; it's really deep and analyitical.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 2:35:38 GMT
That's fine. My point is, in regards to films, different people enjoy and find depth in different things. You can't convince somebody to like or enjoy something he/she didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 2:57:31 GMT
I enjoy the use of colors in a particular scene, so that's depth? Sure. Why not? Now I'm confused. OK, Citizen Kane uses innovative camera work and editing to create the famous Kane mansion. I can't imagine anyone looks at the camera angles or the visual tricks to create the mansion and says "Wow, that's deep." I'd say "Wow That's innovative and interesting" I look at the scene where Gena Rowlands breaks down in A Woman Under the Influence and say "That's very deep." Does this mean effects and visuals can't have depth? No. But visuals aren't always for depth or emotion. Some mise en scenes are created to create a mood surrounding the character, some are just there.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 6, 2006 11:30:12 GMT
'Shallow' you may find it, but the implication there is that cinema can never be 'deep'. Well, considering you're trying to manipulate me into agreeing with you by stating your opinion as fact, let me say that I do not consider cinema a purely visual medium. I don't consider cinema a purely visual 'medium' either. Nor am I stating my opinion as fact. I'm stating facts as fact. The camera is the first fact of cinema. I don't see how that's 'manipulating' you. Generally it is. That doesn't change the fact that cinema is primarily the art of the camera, and disinterest in that, or a distaste for that (as you've expressed below), suggests you'd be better off with literature, theatre and music individually. This is exactly the barely concealed, or in this case not at all concealed, contempt for cinema that I was referring to. The suggestion that to appreciate the form and composition of a film is akin to being vapidly distracted by a shiny object, whereas appreciating stories and characters is more 'deep' and 'mature'. Anyway, forget about the words 'deep' and 'shallow'. You wouldn't refer to absolutely everything you find interesting as 'deep'. Do ever find the form of a film interesting?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 6, 2006 12:45:22 GMT
Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 1 no rating Various 2000 US 1st time; DVD Larry David, co-creator and executive producer of Seinfeld, turns apparent boredom into hilarity; surrounded by fictitious extensions of his real-life friends, and playing himself, he has created here an incredibly creative and consistently funny show. His self-effacing narcissism allows me to connect immediately.I watched it in two sittings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 16:09:01 GMT
Now I'm confused. OK, Citizen Kane uses innovative camera work and editing to create the famous Kane mansion. I can't imagine anyone looks at the camera angles or the visual tricks to create the mansion and says "Wow, that's deep." I'd say "Wow That's innovative and interesting" I look at the scene where Gena Rowlands breaks down in A Woman Under the Influence and say "That's very deep." Does this mean effects and visuals can't have depth? No. But visuals aren't always for depth or emotion. Some mise en scenes are created to create a mood surrounding the character, some are just there. Communication breakdown. In an earlier post, you referred to emotional depth. I think there's a difference between emotional depth, and just depth, depth being some sort of meaning or message. If the camerawork and editing in Citizen Kane touches on the viewer's emotions, then to that person, those aspects of the film have emotional depth. I never implied that camera movements should contain depth, or any kind of meaning. I just think there has to be something behind it all in order for something like that to impress me. If Charles Foster Kane were a pornstar with a giant penis, and much of the film was spent exploring how his penis affects his life and those around him, then those innovative camera movements and editing mean nothing to me, for the plot and the themes dealt with are not of my interest.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 16:17:08 GMT
I don't see a difference. Emotional depth was just a more wordy version of depth for me. I was using an adjective to describe it better.
I never implied that camera movements should contain depth, or any kind of meaning. I just think there has to be something behind it all in order for something like that to impress me.
This sentence is an contradiction to me. My whole point is it doesn't have to have anything behind it, and I'm referring to a particular effect or visual, my best example being the track/zoom in Vertigo.
Some things are done for different reasons. A lot of the Noiresque visuals of Collateral are there to establish mood. Some just character.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 16:18:50 GMT
This is exactly the barely concealed, or in this case not at all concealed, contempt for cinema that I was referring to. The suggestion that to appreciate the form and composition of a film is akin to being vapidly distracted by a shiny object, whereas appreciating stories and characters is more 'deep' and 'mature'. Wetdog, I'm talking about myself only. I don't care if other people appreciate the form and composition of films as opposed to stories and characters, and I'm not going to judge them for it. Like I said, everybody is different. Yes, of course. But I cannot enjoy a film based on that alone. I find the narrative structure in Pulp Fiction to be very creative, original, and as you said, interesting. But I believe that's only a small part of the film's greatness. The same could be said for Once Upon a Time in America.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 16:28:56 GMT
I don't see a difference. Emotional depth was just a more wordy version of depth for me. I was using an adjective to describe it better. I never implied that camera movements should contain depth, or any kind of meaning. I just think there has to be something behind it all in order for something like that to impress me.This sentence is an contradiction to me. My whole point is it doesn't have to have anything behind it, and I'm referring to a particular effect or visual, my best example being the track/zoom in Vertigo. Some things are done for different reasons. A lot of the Noiresque visuals of Collateral are there to establish mood. Some just character. I feel like we're splitting hairs now. I agree with your last 2 paragraphs. Different techniques are used for different reasons, and don't necessarily have to contain any real deep meaning to them. I never implied otherwise. What I did imply was that I cannot enjoy a film based on camera movements alone, a perfect example being Boogie Nights. I don't know what else to say.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 6, 2006 16:37:14 GMT
The only split hair I see is emotional depth being separate from depth.
So what happens in the case of a racist film like The Birth of a Nation which completely changed cinema in a positive way because of it's technical aspects?
|
|